Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Customer data in Britlecone India Ltd, Mumbai vs Asst Cit 2(1)(1), Mumbai on 29 October, 2018Matching Fragments
has been defined, for the purpose of the said ITA No . 3 4 25 / Mu m /2 0 17 Section, in Explanation 2 to Section 10A. Clause
(a) refers to computer programmes recorded in disc, tape or perforated media or other information storage device. Clause (a) refers to the general or common meaning associated with the term, 'computer software'. However, clause
(b) expands the meaning of the term 'computer software' and broadens it to include any customized electronic data or any product or service of similar nature, as may be notified by the Board. The expression, 'any customized electronic data' would mean data, which is customized; but it need not be computer software. Processing or customisation, normally would involve assimilation, correction, filtration, etc. of the data. The requirement is that it should be customised. However, clause (b) does not end with 'customized electronic data' and the legislature wanted to further expand the scope of the term, 'computer software' and thus the wide and broad expression, "any product or service of similar nature, as may be notified by the Board".
The intention and desire of the Legislature, which is palpable and lucid from the words and expression used, is that the term, 'computer software' specifically includes 'customised electronic data' and also 'any product or service of similar nature' notified by the Board (Central Board of Direct Taxes). In other words, the Parliament has left it to the Board to notify the products or services of similar nature, which ITA No . 3 4 25 / Mu m /2 0 17 would be covered under clause (b) and treated as 'customized electronic data' for the purposes of clause (b) to Explanation 2 to Section 10A.
and (xv) Web-site Services." [Notification No. 11512/F.No. 142/49/2000-TPL]"
9. A perusal of the said notification would indicate that the Board has included several distinct types ITA No . 3 4 25 / Mu m /2 0 17 of services under the expression, "product or service of similar nature, information technology enabled product or services" in the fifteen clauses. The Board, in the Notification, has used the expression, 'information technology enabled product or services'. Thus, the Board has understood that product or services, to be included within clause (b) of Explanation 2 to Section 10A, need not be computer software as understood in the common parlance or even customized electronic data, as generally understood. Any product or service of similar nature would include in its ambit, product and services which were enabled by, i.e. would rely upon, or are driven by information technology. This becomes clear when we refer to the wide ambit of the divergent and varied services covered in the different clauses like, "(ii) call centres ... (vii) human resources services ... (viii) insurance claim processing ... (xii) remote maintenance" and, "(xiv) support centres". These services would not necessarily and primarily involve customised data processing, but nevertheless, these are information technology enabled services. In case of call centres, queries and questions from a customer of a third company are answered by an employee of the assessee based in India. The said task is performed with the aid and help of information technology but it would not be a case of customised electronic data service or export ITA No . 3 4 25 / Mu m /2 0 17 thereof. Similar exercise may be undertaken in case of remote maintenance or support centres, which answer queries and gives suggestions by e-mails or through voice and/or video communications. These services would not normally involve processing or sending customised electronic data abroad, yet these are information technology enabled services and specifically covered under the Notification.
5.4 In the above back drop, we find that the nature of services being rendered by the assessee during impugned AY has been explained by the assessee while replying to question no. 2 and the same has been extracted on Page Numbers 9 to 11 of the impugned order. The assessee's prime contention is that it was engaged in the business of production of computer software and also engaged in rendering 4 types of notified IT enabled software services viz. Back Office Operations, Engineering & Design, Remote Maintenance and support centers which are duly covered in the aforesaid notification issued by CBDT. On the other hand, the main thrust of Ld. CIT(A) in rejecting the assessee's claim is that the assessee failed to demonstrate any evidence of manufacturing of any computer software / program / customized electronic data / project or services of similar nature and further, the services rendered as ITA No . 3 4 25 / Mu m /2 0 17 aforesaid do not reveal production of any computer software or related services of similar nature. The other argument of Ld. CIT(A) is that the assessee has only rendered managerial or customer oriented services which were based on software produced / provided by its sister concerns and that too, on sub-contract basis. However, as noted by us as above, manufacture of computer software or program was not an essential condition rather the CBDT notification covered wide spectrum of notified services which were eligible for deduction u/s 10A. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the claim of the assessee vis-à-vis aforesaid CBDT instructions. It is also noted that other years have been reopened by the revenue to deny the said deduction to the assessee. Further, the assessee's claim as raised in Ground Numbers 8 to 11 have not been adjudicated by Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, keeping in view these multiple factors, we deem it fit to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for re-appreciation of assessee's claim and re-adjudicate the same as per law with a direction to assessee to substance his claim."